You all don't get why people are so upset. Trayvon was unarmed. There was no need to pull a gun on a teenager, who only went to go get a pack of skittles and a bottle of water. His crime WILL NOT go unpunished. He killed someone outside of Florida's self-defense law.

At 3/27/12 02:14 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
You all don't get why people are so upset. Trayvon was unarmed. There was no need to pull a gun on a teenager, who only went to go get a pack of skittles and a bottle of water. His crime WILL NOT go unpunished. He killed someone outside of Florida's self-defense law.

It's only self defense when Zimmerman does it. But when Martin retaliates against a crazed stalker with a gun, suddenly he's the aggressor and Zimmerman has the right to defend himself. Zimmerman supporters have this twisted double standard about self defense. It only becomes self defense when a punch of thrown. And Martin automatically threw the first punch. However, if an armed stalker is threatening your life with a gun, it's not self defense to try to stop him. And you deserve to be shot for doing so.

Look, it doesn't matter if Zimmerman is the Grand Wizard of the KKK, it doesn't matter if he followed Martin around in his truck and asked him questions, it doesn't matter if the police dispatcher said he didn't have to follow him. All that matters is whether shooting Martin was a legitimate act of self-defense.
You may not like how Zimmerman profiled Martin or tried to play cop, but if you're going to get upset about bigotry and idiocy, what Zimmerman did lies at near the bottom of an infinitely long list.
The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and Martin repeatedly slammed his head into the ground. Striking the head like that can be fatal, and anyone would be well within his rights to stop that attack with deadly force.
Even if Zimmerman shoved Martin first, it's still a legitimate case of self-defense. Pushes are not life-threatening attacks, which means Martin's response was an overreaction.
The only way it wasn't a case of self-defense is if Zimmerman pulled a gun first or if he shot Martin after he had stopped attacking (not just paused to get another strike in). The nature of the wound, the position of the body, and witness testimony can attest to that, and in those respects I defer to the judgment of the police, whose job it is to investigate such things.
Not testing Zimmerman for drugs or letting him go home (which was presumably close by in the same neighboorhood) does not outweigh the fundamentals of the case.

At 3/27/12 04:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Today I read that Martin had been suspended from school because a baggie with residual traces of marijuanna had been found in his back pack.

For the authorities & a large number of other brain dead idiots in the US & Canada , that proves this guy was no good & got what he deserved !

No, the proof he got what he deserved was the whole part where he was smashing the guys head into the ground. The media has been portraying him with old pictures and making him look 100% innocent of everything ever and never did wrong.

Murdering a person for walking down the street , because he was black & now putting info like this out about the deceased.... is fucking wrong.

It's funny. Leading a moral crusade before all facts are released was ok, yet when people pointed out that Trayvon wasn't a 14 year old kid anymore with a record, all of a sudden it's different. Also, it wasn't because he was black. True, that was why he was profiled. He then went on to fit that profile of a criminal by, you know, attacking somebody and hitting their head against the ground.

Not nearly as wrong as having the murderer still sleeping soundly in his own bed...but i'm a conspiracy nutbar what would I know about common decency & human dignity !

At 3/26/12 11:07 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
They don't wish him to, but it is also not an active order to stand down.

You do realize a 911 dispatcher has no authority to order anyone to do anything right? The dispatcher in question probably felt she was telling him to stop as clearly as possible.

A lot of cops also don't want you to fight back a lot of the time but instead run, but that's also not an order.

Relevance?

There is a huge difference between the two.

There is. One of the principal differences is one has the authority to do what Zimmerman did, the other doesn't. Guess which one Zimmerman belonged to?

Nothing. Zimm was following. Didn't try to confront.

Zimm had no right to follow/chase. Zero. By following/chasing, it can be inferred he was at the least WILLING to confront, if not actively seeking a confrontation.

It implies running after.

It actually doesn't according to the dictionary definition of a later reply to you.

Following in his truck. Following. Not trying to confront.

You keep missing the part where he has absolutely ZERO authority or legal right to be doing that. You also absolve him of the fact that any confrontation would result from the chain of causality that begins with his decision to follow/chase without said authority or right.

So basically it ends up with Trayvon having more of a right to be in the neighborhood, so he can just attack him?

If you completely didn't understand what I was saying and made some stuff up in your head? Yeah, sure, it could go that way.

But in the real world of what I was actually saying? I'm saying you've got a private citizen who has decided to chase another private citizen, with two deadly weapons in his possession (his truck, his gun) and when they reach a piece of private property that is neither citizen's residence, the chased confronts the chaser. Honestly, if Martin had survived the encounter, it seems to me he'd have a better defense under Stand Your Ground then Zimmerman could ever hope to.

Reports of the time spent following differ, but most indicate it at around one block.

Doesn't matter, he has no right to follow Martin. This is the critical point that overrides all this hair splitting you try to do.

Yes, and I've had people get road rage on me since we were going the same way. Therefore, they can attack me right?

The two situations are nowhere near comparable. You can't compare apples to oranges, though you seem bound and determined to try.

7:00 PM. Hardly middle of the night like reported. Yes, I believe Zimmerman should be brought under scrutiny for following, but remember, he was the one attacked.

That is not proven. But even if he did, that attack would have occurred as a result of his unlawful decision to follow Martin with two deadly weapons. Again, if Martin lives, he's got a slam dunk defense under Stand Your Ground against Zimmerman based on the emerging facts so far.

Zimmerman clearly believed this kid was scoping places out to commit a crime.

So what? He's not a cop, he's not a profiler, he's got NO AUTHORITY to do what he did.

He was trying to prevent it. He did not block him off in his car and attack him, he called 9-11 and followed.

He never should of followed him, he had NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO FOLLOW!! This is why all your arguments will continue to fall to pieces, because of this fact. He has no right or business following this kid, none. He violated the rules of his own volunteer group by doing so, if not the law in general.

Uh, he does have the right to be armed, and he was on the phone with police.

Uh, no, 911 is not the police. My brother is a 911 dispatcher, but not a police officer. The two work together, but are not the same. I never said he didn't have a right to be armed, just that he had no right to do what he did, especially while armed.

He did nothing illegal, nor did he violate any rights.

This is so flat out wrong it's insane. But again, a black kid gets shot, a guy with "Racist" in his username defends the shooter...I shouldn't be shocked.

It's perfectly legal and moral to carry a gun, and following criminals through the neighborhood but not going up to them is perfectly within the rights.

Except that it well and truly is not. Unless you can show me a law which says you can. Also when did you magically find evidence saying Martin WAS a criminal? Because if you have some irrefutable proof, please stop talking about it on an internet forum and contact the county prosecutor in Sanford.

Cool. My grandparents were part of the watch. Didn't stop him from being packing. Considering that, you know, criminals don't take kindly to people reporting them.

Were they in THIS neighborhood watch? Because if they were, and they did what Zimmerman did, then they would have broke the rules and guidelines of the watch like Zimmerman did.

The lady that disputed it did NOT see it go down. She said she believed it didn't. Yes, there should be an investigation, but a hit by the BP is a little much.

The BP? Does BP stand for "Black Person"? If so, why does he have to be identified by his race?

Second, it's more then one person disputing Zimmerman you know, right?

Yeah, and who was the first to exchange words?

It doesn't matter because he had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO FOLLOW/CHASE THIS KID!!! Who confronts who is fairly irrelevant when the whole situation could have been avoided if Zimmerman stopped following when 911 told him he wasn't required to do so.

He's the neighbor watch. It's what he does. He did so at a distance.

That is NOT what the neighborhood watch does! EVERY article on this, EVERY person within that particular watch who was interviewed corroborates that fact! He had NO business or right doing what he did. The end!

Nowhere did he break any law.

I fully believe he did, or at the least the law isn't protecting him on chasing some kid because he thinks he's up to no good. Show me the law that says he can.

Seriously, find me the law where he isn't allowed to get out of his truck.

That's a sin of omission and you know it.

Find me the law that says he isn't allowed to be on the phone with police trying to get them on the scene.

Again, convenient omissions. You know damn well where he steps outside of the bounds of what he is legally allowed to do is.

He really did a great job attempting to evade the 250 IB overweight man.

He did until he decided to try and find out why this guy was following him. Then we have someone pushing someone, and a gun shot (based off what Martin's g/f is testifying to).

The scenario where all testimony from eye witnesses corroborate Zimmerman? That scenario?

Oh that is a total lie and you know it. Don't discuss things if you don't want to do it honestly.

What did he do?

He chased a private citizen with two deadly weapons prompting a confrontation that resulted in the other citizen dying. That is what he did. You keep omitting this from almost all your argumentation.

Who Trayvon did not know was armed.

How do you know what Trayvon knew or didn't know, and when he did or didn't know it? I sure don't, I'm going to make an educated guess you don't either.

Either way, even if it was Zimmerman attacking, which I highly doubt, Trayvon forfeited all claim of self defense by bashing his head against the ground.

Except it doesn't based on Florida's version of Stand Your Ground. Martin would have been defending himself in a situation where he felt threatened. You know, the defense Zimmerman is trying to use?

He turned around and verbally engaged, the rest is conjecture. Also Zimmerman still is the ultimate cause because this results from his original decision to chase. If Martin had lived, and Zimmerman pressed charges, I'm almost 100% confident the case would have been tossed because Zimmerman's decisions directly lead to the confrontation.

You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

At 3/27/12 09:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:
As long as Zimmerman didn't try to detain Martin or make threats, he did nothing illegal. There's no law saying you can't ask someone what he is doing in a neighboorhood.

Yes, cause the uproar here is 100% about Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing, and not about Zimmerman shooting Martin...

The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and Martin repeatedly slammed his head into the ground. Striking the head like that can be fatal, and anyone would be well within his rights to stop that attack with deadly force.

I love cases like this, the media's already tried convicted and sentenced Zimmerman to death before the facts are even in, and it doesn't matter what treyvon did, because he's black and Zimmerman is white. And naturally you got all the black supremacist groups are already chanting for his arrest and/or death, along with overt racists like Al Sharpton sticking his nose in...

It's only a matter of time before Eric Holder jumps in.

Had treyvon been white and Zimmerman been black, there wouldn't even be any outrage.

At 3/27/12 09:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
You do realize a 911 dispatcher has no authority to order anyone to do anything right? The dispatcher in question probably felt she was telling him to stop as clearly as possible.

Yep. So why do people bring it up?

Relevance?

That the whole "we don't need you to do that" isn't relevant either?

There is. One of the principal differences is one has the authority to do what Zimmerman did, the other doesn't. Guess which one Zimmerman belonged to?

Authority? Everyone has the authority to call the police on someone and keep a LoS on them.

Zimm had no right to follow/chase. Zero. By following/chasing, it can be inferred he was at the least WILLING to confront, if not actively seeking a confrontation.

Please point me to the law where it says somebody isn't allowed to follow somebody they believe is committing a crime while on the phone with police.

It actually doesn't according to the dictionary definition of a later reply to you.

When has chasing ever been used in a context outside of long distances or fast speeds?

You keep missing the part where he has absolutely ZERO authority or legal right to be doing that. You also absolve him of the fact that any confrontation would result from the chain of causality that begins with his decision to follow/chase without said authority or right.

He has every right to. The chain of causality is such a fickle thing. People only go as far back as they want to. Shit, given causality, we can argue that him making his lunch the way he did caused the event.

If you completely didn't understand what I was saying and made some stuff up in your head? Yeah, sure, it could go that way.

Please point out what you meant, since everybody is assuming Zimmerman can't be in the neighborhood, but Trayvon can.

But in the real world of what I was actually saying? I'm saying you've got a private citizen who has decided to chase another private citizen, with two deadly weapons in his possession (his truck, his gun) and when they reach a piece of private property that is neither citizen's residence, the chased confronts the chaser. Honestly, if Martin had survived the encounter, it seems to me he'd have a better defense under Stand Your Ground then Zimmerman could ever hope to.

Oh, now his truck is also a weapon. Way to not stretch it there at all. You're overlooking one key thing about SYG. The person doing the confronting. Zimmerman didn't block his path, so it all relied on Trayvon initiating the confrontation.

Doesn't matter, he has no right to follow Martin. This is the critical point that overrides all this hair splitting you try to do.

Dear god it does matter. Nowhere is it stated you can't follow somebody for a block while on the phone with cops. If somebody pulls up on a corner, gets out, and walks down the same street as me, I don't bash their head in against the ground, or use deadly force while in their vehicle? I mean, they were following me.

The two situations are nowhere near comparable. You can't compare apples to oranges, though you seem bound and determined to try.

Somebody following. The only difference is the time span. You don't see me getting out and attacking somebody or shooting at a vehicle when they get road rage and follow me through neighborhoods.

That is not proven. But even if he did, that attack would have occurred as a result of his unlawful decision to follow Martin with two deadly weapons. Again, if Martin lives, he's got a slam dunk defense under Stand Your Ground against Zimmerman based on the emerging facts so far.

Everything the pro Trayvon side has is conjecture. The only thing we have is Zimmerman breaking no laws, a cut away if we disregard Zimm, then Trayvon pounding his head against the ground.

So what? He's not a cop, he's not a profiler, he's got NO AUTHORITY to do what he did.

Yes he does. Everybody has the AUTHORITY to call the police and keep a LoS.

He never should of followed him, he had NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO FOLLOW!! This is why all your arguments will continue to fall to pieces, because of this fact. He has no right or business following this kid, none.

And we have no right or authority to be on the internet now do we?

This may come as a shocker, but nowhere in what Zimmerman did was anything illegal. That means he can do it all he wants. If following a kid for a block on the phone warrants bashing your head in, you have a very skewed view of things.

Uh, no, 911 is not the police. My brother is a 911 dispatcher, but not a police officer. The two work together, but are not the same. I never said he didn't have a right to be armed, just that he had no right to do what he did, especially while armed.

Ok, he was on the phone with the people directing police. And you accuse me of splitting hairs.

This is so flat out wrong it's insane. But again, a black kid gets shot, a guy with "Racist" in his username defends the shooter...I shouldn't be shocked.

Your name has skewed in it. Therefore everything you say is skewed. Right?

Except that it well and truly is not. Unless you can show me a law which says you can. Also when did you magically find evidence saying Martin WAS a criminal? Because if you have some irrefutable proof, please stop talking about it on an internet forum and contact the county prosecutor in Sanford.

That's not how laws work. You have to show me the law that says you can't. Laws usually outlaw things, and don't explicitly say you can do this. Show me the law that says you can be on the internet.

Were they in THIS neighborhood watch? Because if they were, and they did what Zimmerman did, then they would have broke the rules and guidelines of the watch like Zimmerman did.

Good thing violating the watch rules is irrelevant when discussing real laws.

The BP? Does BP stand for "Black Person"? If so, why does he have to be identified by his race?

Black Panthers. Try to keep up and not go straight to race.

Second, it's more then one person disputing Zimmerman you know, right?

You mean people who didn't see it?

It doesn't matter because he had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO FOLLOW/CHASE THIS KID!!! Who confronts who is fairly irrelevant when the whole situation could have been avoided if Zimmerman stopped following when 911 told him he wasn't required to do so.

And Trayvon had no legal right to confront somebody and bash their against the ground. Next time I have somebody following me for a block on the phone, I'm going to attack them and say I did what Trayvon did. See how that works out.

That is NOT what the neighborhood watch does! EVERY article on this, EVERY person within that particular watch who was interviewed corroborates that fact! He had NO business or right doing what he did. The end!

Neighborhood watch watches for criminals and calls the police. Zimmerman did this. He just decided to follow and stay on the phone.

I fully believe he did, or at the least the law isn't protecting him on chasing some kid because he thinks he's up to no good. Show me the law that says he can.

That's not how laws work. Show me the one that outlaws what he did.

That's a sin of omission and you know it.

No it isn't. Seriously. Cite me any law and not rules from an outside organization that he broke. If I work somewhere and a customer hits me, in most places the employee handbook says not to hit back. Even if you're an undercover shopper. Does that mean it's illegal? No, it just means I can get fired for it.

Again, convenient omissions. You know damn well where he steps outside of the bounds of what he is legally allowed to do is.

Cite me the law that says it's illegal.

He did until he decided to try and find out why this guy was following him. Then we have someone pushing someone, and a gun shot (based off what Martin's g/f is testifying to).

"That guys been following me for a block while on the phone. I better attack him"

Oh that is a total lie and you know it. Don't discuss things if you don't want to do it honestly.

It's a lie now? That's really convenient to paint those stories that don't fit your views as a l

At 3/27/12 09:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
He chased a private citizen with two deadly weapons prompting a confrontation that resulted in the other citizen dying. That is what he did. You keep omitting this from almost all your argumentation.

It's funny. In no other scenario would somebody claim the car was a deadly weapon unless they actually used the car. Talk about stretching. He had weapons. So what? They were both legal. He did not go straight to using them. He got out of one, and he only used the other once his head was being slammed against the ground

How do you know what Trayvon knew or didn't know, and when he did or didn't know it? I sure don't, I'm going to make an educated guess you don't either.

Going off the girlfriends call and the decision to confront. Most people don't go "Oh, that guy has a gun, I better turn around and yell at him"

Except it doesn't based on Florida's version of Stand Your Ground. Martin would have been defending himself in a situation where he felt threatened. You know, the defense Zimmerman is trying to use?

Zimmerman did not actively do anything for Trayvon to feel his life was in danger. If Zimmerman had been the one to confront, then yes. If Zimmerman had his gun out when he approached, then yes. But hey, that's all pure conjecture. All we do know is that Trayvon was attacking a man and bashing his head against the ground. I'll see what you think of SYG the next time you have somebody doing that to you if you just so happened to be behind them for a block.

Well, the dictionary calls it chasing. Guess which one I go with?

Guess which one is a loaded word?

He turned around and verbally engaged, the rest is conjecture. Also Zimmerman still is the ultimate cause because this results from his original decision to chase. If Martin had lived, and Zim

Everything about Trayvon having a claim to self-defense is conjecture. You just do not attack somebody because they might be following you since they were behind you for a block.

The media is scum, and they do scummy things. They were scum back in 2007, they are still scum today, and their reporting on this case has been manipulative and racist.

no doubt on that one. None at all...

That being said, there is no reason for this case not to go to trial. Zimmerman wasn't even CHARGED with anything. The police department just took his ludicrous story at face value, and there is no excuse for that.

If the story adds up, it adds up. question is, did the story add up? the story Trayvon's family and attorneys are giving contradict many of the known facts. they say they clearly heard 2 gunshots. only 1 casing was found and only 1 bullet was missing from the clip. what happened to that "other bullet"?

Did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? if not, how did he get a bloody nose and how did the back of his head get bloodied?

The media depicts Trayvon as this sweet innocent 17 year old boy with the face of a 10 year old that Zimmerman just walked up and shot for being black in his gated community, but there's more to it than that. Funny part is, the media bias might be enough to make sure that Zimmerman never gets convicted even if he is guilty, due to not being able to get a fair trial.

At 3/28/12 02:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Wounds can be self-inflicted. Also, was there blood on the ground where Zimmerman's head was supposedly slammed against? And I thought there were grass stains on the back of his jacket... would your head really bleed if it was slammed into the grass on a rainy day?

The ground underneath said grass still hurts. It was raining, good luck finding blood in the grass, especially if Zimmerman got up and moved after he shot Martin.

Zimmerman's story is directly contradicted by almost every witness there, as well as the fact that Martin is almost half Zimmerman's weight. There's no way that scrawny little kid could have done that.

Yet it's corroborated by the person who actually saw the thing happen, and didn't only hear it happening. All of those witnesses say they heard a gunshot and screaming. They later said they didn't believe it went down as described. Much like I didn't believe that Kimbo was knocked out by Petruzelli, but look how that happened. Somebody that skinny could easily drop an overweight person with one punch and be able to get on top of them and bash their head against the ground.

At 3/27/12 09:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:
As long as Zimmerman didn't try to detain Martin or make threats, he did nothing illegal. There's no law saying you can't ask someone what he is doing in a neighboorhood.

Yes, cause the uproar here is 100% about Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing, and not about Zimmerman shooting Martin...

Great contribution, Camarohusky. With so many people using the common sense of your average Afghan peasant to rush to judgment, your failure to understand even a 100-word post is refreshing.

At 3/28/12 09:23 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:

The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and Martin repeatedly slammed his head into the ground. Striking the head like that can be fatal, and anyone would be well within his rights to stop that attack with deadly force.

Wounds can be self-inflicted. Also, was there blood on the ground where Zimmerman's head was supposedly slammed against? And I thought there were grass stains on the back of his jacket... would your head really bleed if it was slammed into the grass on a rainy day?

Even if you ignore the eyewitness who reportedly saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him up, it's doubtful that Zimmerman would have had the presence of mind to have broken his own nose, cut the back of his head, and rubbed grass stains into his shirt seconds after killing someone, or without anyone noticing.

Zimmerman's story is directly contradicted by almost every witness there, as well as the fact that Martin is almost half Zimmerman's weight. There's no way that scrawny little kid could have done that.

He wasn't a "scrawny little kid" any more than Zimmerman was a muscular behemoth. Sometimes big people are weak and go down easy, sometimes lighter people have a lot of fight in them. But that's irrelevant. According to at least one witness, Zimmerman was on the ground crying out while Martin was top of him laying blows.

At 3/28/12 04:11 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Wet gardening soil? Really? A 140-pound twerp could make a man almost twice his size bleed by pounding his head against wet gardening soil?

Whoever said it was gardening soil? I've hit my head against wet grass. Shit fucking hurts still. Let alone multiple times after being dropped to the ground by somebody

That's still a vast majority who contradict Zimmerman's case, versus only one corroborating.

Vast majority who contradict it but didn't actually see it.

When?

All of those witnesses you are referring to heard it happen, but didn't see.

That's a 10-pound difference, not a 110-pound difference.

It was 40+ pound difference, and Kimbo is somebody who takes punches for a living. Yet he got dropped by somebody smaller then him.

Even if that's all true, even if Trayvon was indeed 100% responsible for the incident, even if Zimmerman was completely in the right, does that really mean there shouldn't be a trial? There's alot of conflicting evidence in this case, and it is the duty of the courts to examine it all.

Uh, whoever said there shouldn't be a trial or investigation? The trial is predictable:
Prosecutor: Zimmerman committed murdr
Zimm: Prove I did, I acted in defense. Here's the witness.
Prosecutor: Fuck. Well, the media says you're guilty so we're gonna sentence you anyway

Sure, thanks to the media circus it'll be very hard to give him a fair trial, but by not letting the case go to trial, you are automatically giving Zimmerman a free pass, regardless of the truth.

What would he be charged with? There's evidence it's self-defense, and Florida law couldn't bring him in for that alone.

I'm honestly not leaning towards either side of the story right now, but by denying the trial, justice is not being done either way.

There's nothing to bring him in on besides media crusade says you did it

At 3/28/12 03:04 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Great contribution, Camarohusky. With so many people using the common sense of your average Afghan peasant to rush to judgment, your failure to understand even a 100-word post is refreshing.

Your post is trying to deflect the issue here. The issue is that Zimmerman shot Martin. Don't try to make Zimmerman's reasons for confronting Martin an issue, cause they aren't. Not to say those reasons don't have a part to play in the story, but don't go around trying to make that the central issue.

RWG said it best in that the failure here is of the police to do any sort of investigation on par with a possible murder shooting. They took a little bit of evidence, Zimmerman's word, and then decided to completely drop it. This isn't a minor theft, someone was shot and killed. A good investigation is not only warranted it is damn near required.

It is, because it makes it thoroughly clear that there was no reason for Zimmerman to follow Martin and get close enough to him for a physical altercation to start other than he felt like it.

Authority? Everyone has the authority to call the police on someone and keep a LoS on them.

He doesn't have the authority to follow him into the backyard of somebody else and trespass on their property. Where does that fall under Observe and Report?

Please point me to the law where it says somebody isn't allowed to follow somebody they believe is committing a crime while on the phone with police.

Onto the private property of somebody else?

When has chasing ever been used in a context outside of long distances or fast speeds?

In the actual definition of the word. He chased him, you can't wriggle yourself out of a dictionary definition just because you don't like it, that's not how it works.

He has every right to. The chain of causality is such a fickle thing. People only go as far back as they want to. Shit, given causality, we can argue that him making his lunch the way he did caused the event.

You're grasping at straws, and you're well aware of that. Every decision Zimmerman made after notifying the police was one that intentionally placed him in possible danger and contradicted everything Neighborhood Watch actually does, resulting in a fatal shooting that could and should have been avoided.

Please point out what you meant, since everybody is assuming Zimmerman can't be in the neighborhood, but Trayvon can.

Who's assuming this? They both had the right to be where they were. And neither of them had the right to enter somebody's private property. However, just because Martin broke the law and trespassed into somebody's backyard does not give Zimmerman any legal right to do the same.

Martin would have an easier time defending himself in court if the two were charged with trespassing, because he could build a reasonable defense off of "I thought I was going to get shot".

Everything the pro Trayvon side has is conjecture. The only thing we have is Zimmerman breaking no laws, a cut away if we disregard Zimm, then Trayvon pounding his head against the ground.

....the...pro Trayvon side? Are you seriously treating this discussion as some sort of My Team VS. Your Team bullshit?

What the fuck is wrong with you, kid.

This may come as a shocker, but nowhere in what Zimmerman did was anything illegal.

Outlined this in a couple responses below.

Good thing violating the watch rules is irrelevant when discussing real laws.

Not really, because as I've already pointed out to you, intentionally interjecting yourself into a potentially harmful situation in order to incite a conflict is indeed against the law, albeit difficult to prove in court, and it can be argued rather reasonably that it appears that Zimmerman may have indeed been doing exactly that.

And Trayvon had no legal right to confront somebody and bash their against the ground. Next time I have somebody following me for a block on the phone, I'm going to attack them and say I did what Trayvon did. See how that works out.

He could have been verbally threatened, Zimmerman could have initiated the physical altercation etc etc. You can't know how it went down for certain yet you seem rather confident in asserting that you do.

Neighborhood watch watches for criminals and calls the police. Zimmerman did this. He just decided to follow and stay on the phone.

After being told it was not necessary for the police to do their job and ignoring the fact that Neighborhood Watch groups usually ask you not to do this. He also confronted him which is not part of Neighborhood Watch and followed him onto the premises of another person's property, which again, is directly contradictory to Observe and Report.

That's not how laws work. Show me the one that outlaws what he did.

Armed trespassing onto private property. Florida law states that you are not actually committing trespassing unless you are notified that your presence is not wanted on the property, however there is a clause in the law that allows for retro-active accusation of trespassing i.e "This man was snooping through my backyard while I was at work and I did not want him there".

So there's one, if the owners of the property and the Sanford police wished to purse it.

I really hate the "white aggressor + black victim = racism" the media carries. Nobody cares when people of the same ethnicity shoot each other, but when its white vs. black its like the Civil War all over again.

At 3/28/12 07:35 PM, CritcalOne wrote:
I really hate the "white aggressor + black victim = racism" the media carries. Nobody cares when people of the same ethnicity shoot each other, but when its white vs. black its like the Civil War all over again.

Generally I agree but in this one particular case the racism is pretty clear.

At 3/28/12 07:35 PM, CritcalOne wrote:
I really hate the "white aggressor + black victim = racism" the media carries. Nobody cares when people of the same ethnicity shoot each other, but when its white vs. black its like the Civil War all over again.

Racially motivated murders (or all hate crimes of all violence levels) go far beyond the simple act of killing. Such acts send a message that the member of that status is not welcome within the community and that dangerous and lethal force will be untilized to enforce this message. Such murders are nothing less than domestic terrorism.

Let's not forget, just because someone of one race commits a murder against someone of another race doesn't make it a hate crime. There has to be the racial motivation. While there's enough evidence to get past a JOA on that here, there isn't enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was. (Sounds akward talking about trial stuff, because clearly Florida doesn't think this is even worth a serious investigation, let alone a trial.)

At 3/28/12 07:35 PM, CritcalOne wrote:
I really hate the "white aggressor + black victim = racism" the media carries. Nobody cares when people of the same ethnicity shoot each other, but when its white vs. black its like the Civil War all over again.